Federal, hell. That money is coming out of my pocket, as well as the pockets of many others.
I think that AK and HI both should have given independence instead of admission, although there might have been Cold War reasons for the actions taken, (and I think the same of Puerto Rico and any other “territories” still under the US’s hegemony).
I have not heard what was debated in those proceedings. Anyone else?
Gee, and I thought the United States bought Alaska. (I guess that’s what comes from having a Canadian education.) So if the current inhabitants of those lands want to move elsewhere, they should feel free…
But seriously, aside from arguments that there can be “no secession from the U.S.,” would there not be an additional problem when it came to Alaska seceding? It’s not just that so much of it belongs to us, the People (drillers, miners, and bird&bunny brigadiers alike), vested in our federal government. The homesteading laws which (I’m guessing) allowed and encouraged individuals to take title to ‘vast tracts of land’ were probably federal laws, and I suppose might be subject to recission(sp.?). Etc.
And 52 states sounds about right. Then we wouldn’t get confused on whether or not there are more than 50 weeks a year.
Alaska secession. Now there’s a Civil War I’d like to see. A population of about 600,000 taking on the other 49 (46?) states.
I think Ken Burns will be around to film it and have an Alaskan version of Shelby Foote spin tales about it.
Hawaii would have more of a claim to independence, as it had its own constitutional government that was overthrown.
Is the following a UL: when the Russians sold Alaska to the U.S., it was not a sale, but a long-term lease?
(By the way, did you know that Russians invaded Hawaii in 1825 but the natives fought them off?)
As a sidebar question: What would the flag look like with 51 stars? How would they be arranged?
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
Not quite.
Its the “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.”
“Rhode Island” was the name of the island now known as Aquidneck Island, the largest island in Narragansett Bay. Three towns on the island, one you may have heard of, Newport, Middletown, and Portsmouth. Interestingly, Portsmouth is the “home of American democracy”…the first ever town meeting was held there. Anyways, there are also the “Providence Plantations,” the mainland portion of what is now known as Rhode Island.
Jeremy…
Nobody ever calls me after they’ve done something smart.
51 = 3 X 17, therefore
3 rows of 9 alternating with 3 rows of 8.
(My guess would be 9 - 8 - 9 - 8 - 9 - 8):
Tom~
Depends on the purpose of your question, too. Many Federal laws, and most treaties, apply to the “States”, which in their definition includes territories like American Samoa, P.R., Guam, etc…
O le mea a tamaali’i fa’asala, a o le mea a tufanua fa’alumaina.
This is a stupid trick question, which was old the first time it showed up on the SDMB, about a year and a half ago. That being said…
California is actually officially a state. Any confusion comes from the state flag, which does, of course say on it “California Republic”. This is because the state flag is actually the same flag used by the Bear Flag Republic, a (VERY) small and (VERY) short-lived nation that declared independence about a hundred and fifty years ago (I’m pretty sure it was a secession from Mexico, but I could be wrong), here in Sonoma County. Anyway, the flag was kept around because people liked the bear and stuff. Also, in case we ever decide to secede again, the flag doesn’t need to be altered. (And who needs y’all anyway? :))
~Kyla
“You couldn’t fool your mother on the foolingest day of your life if you had an electrified fooling machine.”
So maybe those Alaskans can work a deal to switch themselves to Yeltsin for Chechnya.
As a Northern Californian, I claim this state should be carved into at least 2 states. We never could break it up from the inside, after I don’t know how many attempts, but why does the rest of the country allow a state with almost twice the population of any other state to run the country? Can’t they claim it’s unconstitutional? If they tried to break CA up, would CA be in the position of fighting an uncivil war of anti-secession with them?
Ray (holing up in cyberspace – no earthquakes here)
Every once in a while, some legislators try to push the split-the-state idea through the state senate. While I actually think it’s a pretty good idea, basically because CA is so large and has so many people that it’s probably (like I really know) pretty difficult to govern. However, the last time they tried to do this, whoever drew the line was on crack and it didn’t go anywhere. I mean, they had EVERYTHING being part of Southern California. I mean, SANTA ROSA would have been the largest city in NoCal. A look on a map might indicate that San Francisco (or Sacramento) is sort of in the middle of the state, but ask any SFiscan if they live in SoCal, and they’ll laugh in your face. I think a line drawn just south of Monterey would be about right.
~Kyla
“You couldn’t fool your mother on the foolingest day of your life if you had an electrified fooling machine.”
There are three states in the US. Everything in that country is either a solid, a liquid or a gas.
What about plasma? People gotta heat their houses and cook their food someway…
“Burn, baby, burn…”
“Kiu frenezas? Cxu la mondo aux mi?” -Persone
Thought 1: If they divided California, who loses and gets Bakersfield?
Thought 2: You can’t divide a state against its will (Constitution, Article IV, Section 3). ( I know, Ray, you weren’t being serious. 
)
Thought 3: Given the lack of likelihood of a new state anytime soon, has the US reached a steady-state?
The last time I checked, it was illegal for any state in the Union to withdraw from the Union – this coming around the time of the Civil War along with some threat by Texas to do so. To do so would promptly bring in the military and Marshall law, during which almost all civil rights are suspended.
While sympathetic to the plight of Alaskan loggers and so forth, it is understandable that the government restrict the plundering of their limited natural resources. Down here, they stopped net fishing commercially in our local river because the netters had all but wiped out the local fish. THAT caused a great fuss, but had they kept on, they would have stripped the area of fish. As it is, 5 years later, local fishermen have begun to report catching larger fish and crabs than in years and have observed that some fish thought long gone are beginning to return.
The State also imposed laws concerning individuals using cast nets, fish traps and limitations on all forms of fish taken from the river.
I think the 51st State is actually a territory – Puerto Rico, who are griping that the US doesn’t do enough for them, like give them social security or any of our social benefits BUT they don’t yet want to become a state. Some logic huh? They want the good stuff but don’t want to pay for it.
What? Me worry?’
As mentioned here earlier, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth and not a territory, which is a legal distinction.
As for dividing California into sections, why would the state want to do that? To dilute its power in Congress and the Electoral College? Makes little sense to me.
California is hard to govern, but the Constitution is set up in a way that bigger is better for the most part.
I think Marshall law is only imposed upon continents which large Alliances have recently purged of fascist dictatorships, in an attempt to bolster the former occupied countries economically. tee hee
Dividing the state up would dramatically increase its power in the Senate and leave its power in the House unaffected. As to the electoral college question, that’s a matter of opinion. There would be no huge block on the west coast, so politicians might pay less attention to the region for that reason, but Californians would be represented by more total electors.
Near as I can figure, Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory, according to old maps or atlases. Anyone know when the territory’s Organic Act went into effect, if ever?
According to the Constitution, states and only states send Senators and Representatives to Congress, and, with the specific, Constitutional exception of the District of Columbia, only states may assign people to the Electoral College for Presidential elections.
And what of these Presidents? They were born in the “Commonwealths” and other states mentioned here:
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, W. H. Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Wilson (Virginia).
John Adams, John Quincy Adams, J. F. Kennedy (Massachusetts).
Abraham Lincoln (Kentucky; and what about Jefferson Davis? ;))
Buchanan (Pennsylvania).
Eisenhower, L. B. Johnson (Texas).
Nixon (California).
In history books we had in high school in Redondo Beach, CA, in 1965, there was a sidebar about an article in Soviet textbooks, saying that the American government, including Secretary of State Seward, forced the Russians to sell Alaska. (I bet they wouldn’t have concocted this story if petroleum and gold hadn’t been discovered in Alaska!)
Puerto Rico has been a Commonwealth since 1952, according to Compton’s Online Encyclopedia, and the materials I read online regarding the implimentation of the referendum that occurred in December 1998 on the issue of the island’s future status with the U.S.
Two points about Texas:
The Republic of Texas ceased being a Republic when it was annexed by the United States. According to the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States approved by Congress on March 1, 1845:
Also, Texas maintains the right to split into five separate states, according to the same resolution:
In fact, there was actually a call for secession by the residents of West Texas in the early part of the 20th century after Gov. Pat Neff vetoed legislation establishing a state university in the western part of the state. The result was the founding of Texas Tech University in the Panhandle city of Lubbock in 1923.
Occassionally, someone brings up the idea of splitting Texas in five state in order to increase the state’s power in the Senate. But nothing has ever come of it (obviously).